For some "thing" to be said to exist, it must have a definition. That is how we know what "it" is to which we are referring. "Qualia" exists as a concept. Concepts are "things". "Qualia" has an agreed upon definition.
If I asked you if Fizzleputers really exist, your first reaction would be for me to define what a Fizzleputer is. ("What the hell is a Fizzleputer?"). To claim that "God" exists, you must be prepared to state what your definition of "God" is. The original poster stated, "God, by definition". I simply asked him for that definition since he claimed to know. Since then, I have been bombarded by you with philosophy 101. With all your sophistry and angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense, you haven't addressed a fundamental fact of epistemology and debate. Understanding begins with definitions.
>> and what “it” are you referring to in the above statement?
“For some “thing” to be said to exist, it must have a definition. That is how we know what “it” is to which we are referring. “Qualia” exists as a concept. Concepts are “things”. “Qualia” has an agreed upon definition.”
OK, now you’re going way off track here. I’m asking you about the grammatical reference to the “it” in that statement you are referring to, in other words the antecdent to the pronoun “it” in that statement of yours.
“To claim that “God” exists, you must be prepared to state what your definition of “God” is. The original poster stated, “God, by definition”. I simply asked him for that definition since he claimed to know. Since then, I have been bombarded by you with philosophy 101. With all your sophistry and angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense, you haven’t addressed a fundamental fact of epistemology and debate.”
LOL.
You seem to be confusing me with someone else. The point stands independent of me using the term “qualia” to make that point.
You simply haven’t thought the subject through and are now irrationally lashing out at me. I actually agree with your overall take on “evolution” and I’m not sure why you brought the question of god’s existence into this discussion.
In any case, words can be used without being able to define them outside of an ostensible definition. You are mistaken about that I was simply pointing that out.
No reason to go all crazy...